Appeal 3302599

The appeal is dismissed.

I use the Council’s description of development which is more precise than the application form; I note the Appellant also uses this on the appeal form.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the host property and the locality and b) living conditions for neighbours.

The appeal property is a well-proportioned two-storey detached home in a suburban location with a range of other detached houses in the locality. Whilst designs differ on the homes there is a sense of some unity with subtle and pleasing roof forms and these properties, their gardens, level changes and long views create a whole scene of established good quality residential character and an area of very attractive appearance. The proposal is as described above.

The varied additions at first floor and above would be sizeable and, in my opinion, stretch unduly and awkwardly in all directions to the detriment and disruption of the existing elevations and roofscape. The additional bulk and height would be appreciable and not in character with the area and the property would become ‘top-heavy’. The unusual and excessive approach to dormers would be very ungainly and in parts around the building the planned fenestration would pay little regard to the existing arrangements and would fail to take suitable cues from what is in place.

In summary, I find the proposed works to be a conglomeration of excessive, incongruous and disjointed alterations which would harm immediate and wider aesthetic qualities. The scheme would not represent good design.

Policies QD14 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan (LP), CP12 of the City Plan Part One (CP1) and DM21 of the City Plan Part 2 (CP2) are relevant. Taken together and amongst other matters, these policies seek well designed and suitably scaled development that should protect the character and visual quality of buildings and the local distinctiveness of their wider area and generally have architectural merit. In all the circumstances I conclude that the appeal scheme would conflict with these planning policies.

The very presence of this bulk of building and this degree of glazing and balcony arrangements in proximity to neighbours would be unsettling and not meet the expectations of amenity that those living locally would reasonably have. There would be appreciable degrees of dominance and undue enclosure for neighbours along with impingement upon outlook, light and privacy within pertinent garden areas. Even having regard to levels, obscure glazing, side screens, neighbouring extensions and orientation the result of the scale, form and siting of the appeal works would be un-neighbourliness; living conditions would be unduly impacted.

LP Saved Policy QD27 and CP2 Policy DM20 are relevant. Taken together and amongst other matters they seek to protect the amenities of neighbours. Given the foregoing I would conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to these policies.